State Debate: Election lawyers a good thing

An 11/4 roundup of editorials in state papers

Compiled by Judie Kleinmaier  —  11/04/2008 10:35 am

Election lawyers are a good thing, says the Racine Journal Times.

One would think that the Election Day initiative by the state attorney general would be welcomed. Instead it has led to more partisan sniping, which is too bad because Attorney General J.B. Van Hollen is doing only what his Democratic predecessor Peg Lautenschlager did four years ago.

Lautenschlager said Van Hollen's plan to have assistant attorneys general and state agents out troubleshooting today's elections is a plan to prevent people from casting ballots. Her intent when she sent out assistant attorneys general and agents in 2004 was to enable people to cast votes. How anyone can accurately see the different intent in another's mind is unclear, but perhaps that's what advanced legal training does. Van Hollen did file an unsuccessful lawsuit a few weeks ago to force a massive double check of voter registration lists in order to catch potential voter registration fraud, and that made him a target of Democrats because to them the Republican theme of widespread voter fraud is an excuse to limit voting rights.

Because this has been a very emotional election season we should be glad of having experts on hand to hold passions in check and enforce the law fairly.

Don't forget to vote today. More than on any other day, this is the time when citizens can give their government direction. The power is yours. Use it.

Misleading speech still can be protected speech, says the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel.

Jackson County Circuit Judge Thomas Lister on Friday ordered the Coalition for America's Families to stop airing ads against Democrat Mark Radcliffe of Black River Falls in a state Assembly race. Fortunately, a three-judge panel of the District 4 Court of Appeals got it right on Monday, staying Jackson's order.

The coalition alleges that Radcliffe supports a universal health care plan that would, among other things, give free health care to illegal immigrants. The statement is ridiculously false. More than that, it is slimy.

But here's the thing: Slimy speech still can be protected speech under the First Amendment. There are remedies short of imposing prior restraint.

The state Government Accountability Board could vote as early as next Tuesday on a rule that would define "political purpose" in such a fashion that could force these shadowy interest groups to play by the same rules as do candidates.

We hope the GAB does just that.

Defining 'fair' taxation for rich is tricky, says the Eau Claire Leader-Telegram.

One of the most daunting tasks facing the new president and Congress is what to do about a nation living way beyond its means. Asking everyone to pay their "fair share" of taxes is in the eye of the payer. Some argue the current graduated income tax system is inherently unfair because the very rich can hire clever accountants to shelter their fortunes. The less wealthy, who don't have access to such professional tax help, end up paying more as a result.

It's instructive to know who is paying what. The nonpartisan Wisconsin Taxpayers Alliance recently released an analysis of U.S. taxpayers based on Internal Revenue Service data for 2006:

-- Workers earning up to $50,000 a year represented two-thirds of all filers, accounted for 23 percent of total income and paid 8.3 percent of U.S. income taxes.

-- Filers above $50,000 represented the remaining third of filers, reported about 77 percent of income and paid nearly 92 percent of income taxes.

-- Three percent of filers earned more than $200,000 a year. They accounted for about 30 percent of all income and paid about 53 percent of the $1.03 trillion in federal income taxes.

On the surface, it's hard to make the case that if we simply "made the rich pay their fair share" we could balance the federal budget.

Compiled by Judie Kleinmaier  —  11/04/2008 10:35 am